3 ms·

It doesn't really matter what is running the physics, whether it's a "real" world doing that, or some other process that some then call "illusion" which imho th

It doesn't really matter what is running the physics, whether it's a "real" world doing that, or some other process that some then call "illusion" which imho the same anyway after all it's real enough that we're able to think inside of it. Whether it's an illusion or not, the fact is that the consciousness is still there. The process that makes us aware (not just the sensing, the ability to know you think about it etc...) of the information (the world, no matter how it works) needs to be explained. Imho Douglas Hofstadter comes closest to trying to explain it without all that kind of pitfalls in "I Am a Strange Loop". Not that it actually truly explains it, but at least it acknowledges those things that make me normally dismiss theories that could explain consciousness.

GavinMcG 10y ago
I think you might be dismissing the article while actually agreeing with its core argument. It's not about a substrate on which reality is running - it's about access to the mechanisms of consciousness and how our view of consciousness doesn't reflect those mechanisms fully. Dennett's explanation basically uses Hofstadter's conception.
beefield 10y ago
>fact is that the consciousness is still there. There is a small problem with this claim. Or, at least there is a problem if you happen to believe in popperian philosophy of science that says that claims that are not falsifiable are non-scientific. Obviously, from popperian point of view that claim is about as unfalsifiable as is the claim that God created earth and everything on it. Which may be true or may be not, but the claim is not a claim in the scientific realm but in religious realm, and I would be a bit vary to consider claims in religious (or non-scientific if that is a bit less sensitive word) realm "facts". I mean, it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? I have no idea. It feels obvious that earth is flat, but there are ways to prove that wrong.
- mistersquid 10y ago
  Presence of consciousness is falsifiable, albeit indirectly and after the fact (unlike existence which is real time). Self-awareness/consciousness can verify its own falsifiability by using periods of unconsciousness such as dreamless sleep, fainting, etc. as evidence.
- narag 10y ago
  it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? Why do you need to prove the obvious? It feels obvious that earth is flat It doesn't if you climb a mountain or see a ship under the horizon. It's a very thin layer of "obviousness" that disappears with very little reasoning. There's nothing similar for consciousness, on the contrary every argument that has been tried against it feels terribly clumsy and artificial.
  - otikik 10y ago
    The question already has uses. It is worth asking ourselves wether other animals are conscious. It is worth asking ourselves whether a human phoetus is conscious. And sooner or later we will need to ask ourselves wether machines are conscious.
    - narag 10y ago
      The first two questions are tricky. The third is really the reason we're reading about consciousness so often. But I'm not sure that questioning consciousness reality itself is so useful to replicate it.
- amelius 10y ago
  The fact that we are talking (in this physical world) about consciousness, gives me a strong indication that at least consciousness is interacting bi-directionally with physics (from a dualistic viewpoint), so it should fall in the realm of science. Of course, consciousness could be generated by physics alone, but then we would not be aware of it, so alternatively, consciousness could be generated by physics AND exist separately from it (as an observer), but this seems much more contrived.
otikik 10y ago
It doesn't matter for now. AI is coming. We better have it figured out by then.

GavinMcG 10y ago

I think you might be dismissing the article while actually agreeing with its core argument. It's not about a substrate on which reality is running - it's about access to the mechanisms of consciousness and how our view of consciousness doesn't reflect those mechanisms fully. Dennett's explanation basically uses Hofstadter's conception.

beefield 10y ago

>fact is that the consciousness is still there. There is a small problem with this claim. Or, at least there is a problem if you happen to believe in popperian philosophy of science that says that claims that are not falsifiable are non-scientific. Obviously, from popperian point of view that claim is about as unfalsifiable as is the claim that God created earth and everything on it. Which may be true or may be not, but the claim is not a claim in the scientific realm but in religious realm, and I would be a bit vary to consider claims in religious (or non-scientific if that is a bit less sensitive word) realm "facts". I mean, it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? I have no idea. It feels obvious that earth is flat, but there are ways to prove that wrong.

mistersquid 10y ago
Presence of consciousness is falsifiable, albeit indirectly and after the fact (unlike existence which is real time). Self-awareness/consciousness can verify its own falsifiability by using periods of unconsciousness such as dreamless sleep, fainting, etc. as evidence.
narag 10y ago
it feels obvious that I have conscience, but how do you prove or disprove that claim? Why do you need to prove the obvious? It feels obvious that earth is flat It doesn't if you climb a mountain or see a ship under the horizon. It's a very thin layer of "obviousness" that disappears with very little reasoning. There's nothing similar for consciousness, on the contrary every argument that has been tried against it feels terribly clumsy and artificial.
- otikik 10y ago
  The question already has uses. It is worth asking ourselves wether other animals are conscious. It is worth asking ourselves whether a human phoetus is conscious. And sooner or later we will need to ask ourselves wether machines are conscious.
  - narag 10y ago
    The first two questions are tricky. The third is really the reason we're reading about consciousness so often. But I'm not sure that questioning consciousness reality itself is so useful to replicate it.
amelius 10y ago
The fact that we are talking (in this physical world) about consciousness, gives me a strong indication that at least consciousness is interacting bi-directionally with physics (from a dualistic viewpoint), so it should fall in the realm of science. Of course, consciousness could be generated by physics alone, but then we would not be aware of it, so alternatively, consciousness could be generated by physics AND exist separately from it (as an observer), but this seems much more contrived.

otikik 10y ago

It doesn't matter for now. AI is coming. We better have it figured out by then.